What am I?

@Salbris,

Salbris;88478 wrote:

Basically, it's the world view that since perception of our environment (the physical universe) is not reliable information then it is possible that our environment is a sort of illusion.

Hi Salbris,

The nature of reality and the ability for one to know reality through senses, is a common theme that you will find in Western and Eastern religions. There are many different ways to approach this subject. Here is a link to a short essay that discusses some of what Socrates had to say on the subject:

Socrates, the Senses and Knowledge: Is there Any Connection? - sensory, Plato, Phaedo, truth, Forms, dialectic method, morality

"Socrates saw many such examples and came to the conclusion that by their very nature, our senses do not grasp reality. Of things that are changeable and imperfect, there can never be knowledge.(15) No reality is possible from sensible objects, and therefore, they cannot be what we seek in our search for truth. Our reality is impeded by them.(16) Reality and knowledge can only be found in our souls and with the Forms.(17) As objects of knowledge, the Forms cannot be known by using our senses because they can only interact with things that are less than perfect. The Forms are eternally perfect and are known only by the soul. Knowledge of them is not found through exercising our senses, but in the exercising of our souls. We may be able to recognize different kinds of things through our senses, but that is only because we have previous knowledge of the Forms.(18)"

Hope this gives you a start.

Rich

@richrf,

Salbris,

One of the best matches to your point is "the argument of universal doubt" posited by Rene Descartes in Meditations on First Philosophy. It goes by other names, like "universal skepticism," and "sum negation" but the universal doubt name is the most well known.

Specifically, look to the first meditation (Descartes Meditationscogito argument "I am a thinking thing" which many people interpret wrongly as "I think therefore I am" argument). But the first meditation is the crux of the answer, the argument for universal doubt. I completely agree with you though that these types of conceptions are mind breaking (as well as ground breaking). Descartes is considered the father of modern philosophy in the most part due to this very point. It spawned an entire line of philosophers to develop their own particular views on the subject, from the rationalists that followed like Spinoza, Leibniz, and even Malebranche to the rebuttals of the empiricists and a-posteriori based theories of Locke, Hume, and Berkeley. You are following in the footsteps of some of the greatest minds the world has ever known. This theory is also where we get a good chunk of the premises behind the Matrix series, with a dash of Searle and so on of course.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;88483 wrote:

Salbris,

One of the best matches to your point is "the argument of universal doubt" posited by Rene Descartes in Meditations on First Philosophy. It goes by other names, like "universal skepticism," and "sum negation" but the universal doubt name is the most well known.

Ah, Descartes, I nearly forgot about him. Thank you for putting a name to this view.

VideCorSpoon;88483 wrote:

The only thing he knows may be true is the logical inference that he is being deceived. The philosophy goes on (into the cogito argument "I am a thinking thing" which many people interpret wrongly as "I think therefore I am" argument). But the first meditation is the crux of the answer, the argument for universal doubt. I completely agree with you though that these types of conceptions are mind breaking (as well as ground breaking). Descartes is considered the father of modern philosophy in the most part due to this very point. It spawned an entire line of philosophers to develop their own particular views on the subject, from the rationalists that followed like Spinoza, Leibniz, and even Malebranche to the rebuttals of the empiricists and a-posteriori based theories of Locke, Hume, and Berkeley. You are following in the footsteps of some of the greatest minds the world has ever known. This theory is also where we get a good chunk of the premises behind the Matrix series, with a dash of Searle and so on of course.

I had always learned that the phrase "Cogito Ergo Sum" meant "I think, therefore I am." Even Wikipedia has the article: Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Where it describes the quote as I remember. Is this not so, you say?

Like Descarte I tried to start with myself as a jumping off point to other facts. I have a conscious therefore I exist (in the real reality). More importantly, is the idea that everything exists, but the form of things is unknown. Example, we could be a computer program in side of a computer existing a reality like our own, but far more advanced. All that is certain is that we exist, and our form is unknown.

I tried to find other facts, some of which I'm not sure of but isn't really the point of this thread, so I'll make another, since you have sparked my interest in sharing my thoughts.

Thank you for your kind words. "You are following in the footsteps of some of the greatest minds the world has ever known." That is very encouraging. :bigsmile:

@Salbris,

Thats not as uncommon as you seem to think, but its nice anyway, I personally consider realizing that the first step to gain true understanding of the universe =)

@manored,

Salbris,

Salbris;88485 wrote:

I had always learned that the phrase "Cogito Ergo Sum" meant "I think, therefore I am." Even Wikipedia has the article: Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Where it describes the quote as I remember. Is this not so, you say?

The phrase "cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am) comes from a later work by Descartes entitled Principles of First Philosophy. The major point of differentiation between the Meditations "Res Cogitans" (I am a thinking thing) and the Principles statement (I think, therefore I am) is foremost a predication of arguments already entailed throughout the entire book of Meditations. Simply, "Cogito Ergo Sum" is a composite of the entirety of Meditations referenced for another book (written 3 years later in 1649) with some additional elaborations. "Res Cogitans" is solely in reference to the Cogito argument (which apparently the wiki disputes calling LOL). My main gripe with the wiki would be that, although it passes as pretty well informed, even on a basic translation level, the phrases do not add up with the subject matter. How can Descartes "think, therefore he is" when at the beginning of Meditation 2, he is still trying to solve out whether he even exists or not. Also, the original Meditations Meditations on First Philosophy, consider "Readings in Modern Philosophy" by Rodger Ariew, et. al.

Salbris;88485 wrote:

(1) Like Descarte I tried to start with myself as a jumping off point to other facts. (2) I have a conscious therefore I exist (in the real reality). (3)More importantly, is the idea that everything exists, but the form of things is unknown. (4) Example, we could be a computer program in side of a computer existing a reality like our own, but far more advanced. (5)All that is certain is that we exist, and our form is unknown.

Note: I marked your points with numbers for reference. There are a few philosophers and their points you may want to consider here. In your first sentence, you want to have a jumping off point. That's exactly what Descartes predecessor, Baruch Spinoza, attempted to do. Unlike Descartes analytic approach, Spinoza in Ethics used a synthetic approach, using Axioms and definitions first (logically conceived of course) to base his entire argument off of. If you want to start off with hard assumptions, read Ethics, because it is most illuminating. In your second sentence, that's pretty much Descartes in a nutshell, although he has to go through some very abstract reasoning first to get there (he has to reduce down to its simplest component to know it clearly and distinctly and then build it back up and enumerate.) On your third sentence, you may want to look to Gottfried Leibniz and Monodology for some good arguments to back this up.

On your fourth sentence point, you may want to look into Hilary Putnam's Reason, Truth, and History. In the book, he describes a hypothetical called the "brain-in-the-vat" where (in the analogy) a scientist puts a brain into a vat with nutrients that keep the brain alive. The nerve endings are connected to a super computer that feeds the brain information which causes an illusion in which the brain believes that everything is normal. Everything is artificially generated for as much as we may know (which incidentally leads to your point in sentence 5). This is where The Matrix takes the epistemological abstraction into an action movie. If you are interested in stuff like this, you are interested in epistemological skepticism. Hilary Putnam would be a very entertaining place to start, Descartes is essential!

Manored,

And then comes the ontological questions raised by the epistemological questions. Its like the metaphysics joke:

Alan: "If Atlas holds the world up, what holds up Atlas?"
Bob: "A giant turtle."
Alan: "But what holds that turtle up?"
Bob: "Another turtle."
Alan: "But what holds that turtle up?"

@Salbris,

Senses are flawed, and we can't be sure that everyone percieves the same thing. If we were flawless, we would all see the same thing with our senses. How can we presume we are all that exists simply because we can't be sure that senses aren't an illusion? If they are an illusion, what is causing that illusion? Another illusion? Is it illusions all the way down like the aforementioned turtle joke? We can sense. Without something allowing us to sense, we could not. Since we can sense, some force is causing us to. Humans don't have perfect sensory capabilities, but since we have capapbilities to begin with, not all of reality can be an illusion. Of course, if we call something an illusion, and that's all there is, we would eventually presume it is reality.

-Well, that was a little dense and redundant. Sorry if the post was imperfect, but I tried to explain.

---------- Post added 09-06-2009 at 09:12 PM ----------

I am what I feel. If I presume reality is what it is, I feel real and normal. On the other hand, if I question it, i'll begin to feel that it is an illusion.

@Leonard,

Leonard;88581 wrote:

Senses are flawed, and we can't be sure that everyone percieves the same thing. If we were flawless, we would all see the same thing with our senses. How can we presume we are all that exists simply because we can't be sure that senses aren't an illusion? If they are an illusion, what is causing that illusion? Another illusion? Is it illusions all the way down like the aforementioned turtle joke? We can sense. Without something allowing us to sense, we could not. Since we can sense, some force is causing us to. Humans don't have perfect sensory capabilities, but since we have capapbilities to begin with, not all of reality can be an illusion. Of course, if we call something an illusion, and that's all there is, we would eventually presume it is reality.

-Well, that was a little dense and redundant. Sorry if the post was imperfect, but I tried to explain.

---------- Post added 09-06-2009 at 09:12 PM ----------

I am what I feel. If I presume reality is what it is, I feel real and normal. On the other hand, if I question it, i'll begin to feel that it is an illusion.

Seems like you've been thinking about this as much as I have. I've gone over these ideas over and over. I've reasoned out some universal facts which I think exist between all "realities". I'll make it into another thread as not to bloat this one with off-topic garbage.

Thanks Vide. You answered my question perfectly, and with bonus information. But it's time I leave this thread.

@Salbris,

Salbris;88478 wrote:

So I'm not crazy.

As far as you know. Your senses could be fooling you about this though. How reliable is the information you are getting about your sanity?

@Salbris,

Salbris;88478 wrote:

Basically, it's the world view that since perception of our environment (the physical universe) is not reliable information then it is possible that our environment is a sort of illusion.

The first half of the conditional statement, that sense perception is not capable of providing certainty, is quite old, dating from at least Plato (remember the Myth of the Cave in the Republic?) and finding its culmination in Sextus Empricus and the Pyrrhonists in the Ancient world, and the British Empiricists (Locke and Hume) in the Modern world.
The second half of the statement, however, was ventured by few philosophers in the West, and perhaps is closer to the despair of some Eastern mystical dogmatists. For the most part, Western philosophers attempted to find at least SOME statements about sense data that were true, or at least more or less certain ["the sun will rise tomorrow'] upon which one could act with certainty. Modern phenomenological thought stresses that to some extent, the world is socially constructed, and that the presence of the Other guarantees the possibility of "true" sense experience through the transcendental use of meaning.

@jgweed,

@pagan,

pagan;89561 wrote:

That is an issue that later empiricists like Locke, Hume, and Berkeley attempted to answer. When you are dealing with a question like this, the most effective way of addressing the issue is with a-priori principles put forth by rationalists such as Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, and Malebranche.. Simply, a-priori is knowledge that comes before the senses. You would probably like Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, most notably the first section on a refutation of innate ideas.

pagan;89561 wrote:

Because logically it is impossible. Logically we can never perceive the real environment. All that we perceive must necessarily be a kind of illusion. We see representations of things and not the things in themselves. So, isn't it strange that by logic we should ask if we are being fooled and are seeing illusion, when the very set up of the question itself directly implies it! Namely that we reject the idea that we perceive the actual environment in the first place.

Logically speaking we can. It depends on how you utilize a closed system. You can perceive a real environment in terms of rationalistic a-priori terms because, as a matter of fact within the content of scientific reasoning (Descartes Discourse on Method for example) where that which is not adequately know "clearly and distinctly" must be broken down to rationalistic simplicities to be built back up again and enumerated. Other than that, you may be interested also in Berkeley's Principles of Human Knowledge. Berkeley was the first to deny the existence of substance, that all is illusory in finite terms and everything depends on perception. I don't agree with the logical substance of your argument, but it is interesting none the less.

pagan;89561 wrote:

Some may say, 'well hang on there is a world of difference between a brain in a fake master matrix, as compared to seeing a representation of a tree that is actually out there in the real environment.' But there isn't really. A brain in a fake master matrix is no different to being in present day virtual reality technology, and forgetting that you have put the goggles on. Ie forgetting who you are, a person with virtual reality goggles on. If you believe that you see real trees, then even if you forget that you are wearing the goggles, then the real trees reappear on taking them off. Fake reality becomes a matter of forgetting reality.

pagan;89561 wrote:

But if you don't believe that you see the real trees in the first place, but see a representation of a tree, then all is necessarily a kind of illusion by definition. What's the point of asking if there is some matrix that is fooling you? Ie Doing something to your brain such that the representation trees you see are representations of not real trees? You already know from your rejection of being able to see real trees, that you see representations. Representations ain't the real thing anyway. Philosophically the point is already made by forming the question. The question is actually asking something about representation, not real environments.

You would enjoy Berkeley's Principles of Human Knowledge. What you have to say is very close to Berkeley's position on Qualities and Ideas (material and spiritual substance). Also, the "point of asking" so to speak is ontological, a logical predicate.

pagan;89561 wrote:

It is actually asking "is your illusion an even bigger illusion than you thought it was?" But curiously it is often expressed as "do we see an illusion?"

This seems tautological.

pagan;89561 wrote:

Why would we do that? Why do we falsely claim that we are asking the second question when it must follow that we are asking the first? In other words, why do we forget that we are seeing an illusion?

This seems very mixed. How do we falsely ask a question in the first place, let alone get to the point where we question the syllogistic context?

pagan;89561 wrote:

How is it possible to forget a logical inference? Logical inferences are (within a closed system) immune from doubt.

pagan;89561 wrote:

A is it possible in a representational world to forget that you see representations and believe you see reality?

B is it possible in a really seen world to forget that you are seeing real representations of a fake world, and believe you are seeing reality?

But as I have said above the really interesting question is

C is it possible that we actually see the real world?

Because without answering C in the affirmative, question B becomes meaningless. BUT further, answering C in the affirmative is truly radical in today's scientific rationalist culture. It didn't use to be. In fact it still isn't for most people outside philosophy.

Question A we know is true, because we can forget the logical inferences that create a representational world, and then ask if what we see is not reality. Only if A were true could we ask such an odd question.

Interestingly enough, your point C is the fundamental question of the thread, so I don't understand where the novelty is though. I don't agree with your logical proofing though, but it's interesting how you reached your conclusions, which is certainly a good thing.

pagan;89561 wrote:

Which are we? And yes we can forget.

@pagan,

pagan;89561 wrote:

A is it possible in a representational world to forget that you see representations and believe you see reality?

I would have thought that this was in fact the important question, since is supposes something that needs support, namely that we see representations of things and not things.

What seems to me true is that we have representations of things, and that we are able to see things because of those representations. To talk as you talk is like saying that when we kick a rock, what we kick is our kick, and not the rock. I have never seen a representation of things. What I have seen are things, and it is because I have representations of those things that I am able to see things. Of course, sometimes I do see representations of things, as when I see the reflection of something in a mirror. But that is not normally how we see things.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;89639 wrote:

How is it possible to forget a logical inference? Logical inferences are (within a closed system) immune from doubt.

well being human, logical inferences can easily be forgotten ..... or not noticed. Like for example when it is indeed a closed system. Where the real environment is closed out!

But yeh i can't think of a way of responding other than repetition. So fair enough. I respect and disagree too. Smile

@pagan,

pagan;89932 wrote:

well being human, logical inferences can easily be forgotten ..... or not noticed. Like for example when it is indeed a closed system. Where the real environment is closed out!

But yeh i can't think of a way of responding other than repetition. So fair enough. I respect and disagree too.

What does it mean to "forget" a logical inference? To forget to make one? To forget that you have made one?

@Salbris,

YouTube - What am I? What am I?

@Salbris,

I have a couple of questions: (1) what is really involved in investigating this, given that everything you think is somehow involved in the situation or illusion which you are investigating. How can the instrument of thought ask this question about its own functioning, given that the very asking of the question presupposes the ability to think?

Which leads to (2) what is important about it? Everything is a representation, so what? I still have to go to work and obey the law and all the rest of it. It doesn't make me like Neo in Matrix. So even if it is a representation, everyone else seems to be in it as much as me. It is like a game: even though I know it might be a game, I am involved in it, and seem to have a stake in it, so I seem to have no choice but to play it. Hence - so what? Will working out the way it is a representation get me out of the matrix?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;90811 wrote:

I have a couple of questions: (1) what is really involved in investigating this, given that everything you think is somehow involved in the situation or illusion which you are investigating. How can the instrument of thought ask this question about its own functioning, given that the very asking of the question presupposes the ability to think?

Which leads to (2) what is important about it? Everything is a representation, so what? I still have to go to work and obey the law and all the rest of it. It doesn't make me like Neo in Matrix. So even if it is a representation, everyone else seems to be in it as much as me. It is like a game: even though I know it might be a game, I am involved in it, and seem to have a stake in it, so I seem to have no choice but to play it. Hence - so what? Will working out the way it is a representation get me out of the matrix?

1. Descartes

2. Why not?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;90811 wrote:

It doesn't make me like Neo in Matrix.

Way off topic, but I always thought it would have been entertaining if both the red pill and the blue pill that Morpheus offered Neo had actually been extremely powerful laxatives.

This would have been doubly funny, because then it wouldn't have mattered what his choice had been. Also, I don't recall seeing anything that looked like a bathroom on the Nebuchadnezzar.

I don't think Trinity would have been able to keep a straight face when she later told Neo, "I've never seen anyone move like that."

Sorry. That's just the way my head works sometimes.
A moderator should probably delete this . . .

@TickTockMan,

pagan;89561 wrote:

Because logically it is impossible. Logically we can never perceive the real environment. All that we perceive must necessarily be a kind of illusion. We see representations of things and not the things in themselves. So, isn't it strange that by logic we should ask if we are being fooled and are seeing illusion, when the very set up of the question itself directly implies it! Namely that we reject the idea that we perceive the actual environment in the first place.

Some may say, 'well hang on there is a world of difference between a brain in a fake master matrix, as compared to seeing a representation of a tree that is actually out there in the real environment.' But there isn't really. A brain in a fake master matrix is no different to being in present day virtual reality technology, and forgetting that you have put the goggles on. Ie forgetting who you are, a person with virtual reality goggles on. If you believe that you see real trees, then even if you forget that you are wearing the goggles, then the real trees reappear on taking them off. Fake reality becomes a matter of forgetting reality.

It is actually asking "is your illusion an even bigger illusion than you thought it was?" But curiously it is often expressed as "do we see an illusion?"

a) Representation is as much as we will ever perceive so it's what we refer to as real. You could get specific and signify a difference between representation and thing but as long as the viewer is receiving a perfect representation (as proper human minds do) then the difference is basically non-existent.

Secondly, calling the two different adds nothing to the understanding of the idea. It's a matter of determining if our environment is below the scope/direct laws of the real universe. What I mean by that is that you could program a computer program to mimic life then change some laws of physics since the program is not strictly required to simulate the reality it inhabits.

Verifying our perceptions with logic may allow us to find out if our reality has some inherit contradiction (if it does then we can conclude that our perception is either skewed or that we are apart of an artificial reality).

b) Those people would be correct. There is a huge difference between the everyday representation of things as we perceive them and a completely artificial reality.

In the former we are still perceiving thing we consider real. Ex. Assuming our reality is real then the representation of objects is received visually thanks to photons of light. Which are emitted by the object it represents in a very specific and replicatable way. So the representation is direct related to the thing which it represents.

In the latter we are perceiving things as a representation of some form of complex data. Whether it be a computer program or the vibrations of crystals. Our perceptions may not directly relate to the things they represent, it's possible that they do not represent anything real them selves, but only data in a program.

c) Representations are not illusions, they are representations. A mirror does not hide or skew the reflection it produces it simply produces it's emission based on the laws of physics.

jeeprs;90811 wrote:

I have a couple of questions: (1) what is really involved in investigating this, given that everything you think is somehow involved in the situation or illusion which you are investigating. How can the instrument of thought ask this question about its own functioning, given that the very asking of the question presupposes the ability to think?

Which leads to (2) what is important about it? Everything is a representation, so what? I still have to go to work and obey the law and all the rest of it. It doesn't make me like Neo in Matrix. So even if it is a representation, everyone else seems to be in it as much as me. It is like a game: even though I know it might be a game, I am involved in it, and seem to have a stake in it, so I seem to have no choice but to play it. Hence - so what? Will working out the way it is a representation get me out of the matrix?

1) Probably the best question yet. I mean how can we make inferences about things we cannot perceive when the entirety of our knowledge could be artificial and skewed? There are some things we cannot be disproven, thankfully. For one we can say that everything exists, however what is not certain is whether we are perceiving data or real life representations (like real photons hitting our eyes). I can say for certain that my mind exists, because I am actively thinking. Curiously though, we can never be certain if anyone else is really the same caliber of mind as you. Meaning, it is possible that I am the only real person, but that my perceptions are being created in a computer while everyone else is a program. (Basically the Matrix)

I've tried to develop other more important facts (and in this case I mean facts as in universally undeniable facts, regardless of whether we are in the real reality or not) like time being a universal must have. I'm pretty sure it's impossible that IF there is a reality which has created our own reality, that that reality is devoid of time. Why? Because lack of time implies no change, so logically it's impossible for the change of time in our reality to occur. So, all realities above us (more real) must have progressive time.

I've also made some inferences about the possibilities of deterministic processes in realities. But I'll share if anyone is interested, I've babbled on too long already.

The most important thing to realize is that the content of other realities is impossible to dictate. In other words, there may be time in our realities above us, but we do not know how matter works, what their species look like, or if we are a product of intelligence since it's just as possible that we are just vibrations in crystals).

Also the knowledge of the truthness of a reality is also impossible to dictate.
Ex. Say you some day awake from this reality into the one which created us (if it exists) and the beings there showed you how they made this reality and even treated you as if you were real and for the rest of your life you found no evidence to prove that other reality is an illusion it would still be very illogical to think that your in the real reality.

In other words you can only ever find out if your reality is illusionary, but you'll never know if your in the real reality.

Wow, I didn't mean that response to be so long, sorry. Surprised

2) Your right, this is almost completely a non-important endeavor. Even if you found a contradiction in our reality, there is no guarantee that you can escape it (if you want). I find it important because this means that we can never know anything to be 100% sure (aside from some of the universal facts I talked about) so it's pointless to believe in anything. Although, you should mostly believe that this is real reality so you don't go crazy, in-case that this is the real reality.

Anyways sorry for the long post. Good luck reading. Smile

Philosophy Forum

What am I?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know